A-POWER ENERGY: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set----------------------------------------------------------------Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on July 15 disclosed that all personsor entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities ofA-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. between March 31, 2008,and June 27, 2011, inclusive, have until August 31, 2011, to movethe Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud classaction lawsuit. The case is pending in the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from GlancyBinkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss thisaction or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 orToll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail toshareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site athttp://www.glancylaw.com

A-Power, through its subsidiaries, provides onsite distributedpower generation systems and micro power grids for industrialcompanies, primarily in the People's Republic of China. TheComplaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued aseries of materially false and misleading statements concerningthe Company's business and financial performance. Specifically,defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failedto disclose that: (1) the Company improperly accounted for itsrelated-party transactions such that its financial statements werepresented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles(GAAP); (2) the Company's revenues and income were misstated inviolation of GAAP; (3) revenue and income reported in theCompany's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionwere overstated, as the Company reported materially lower revenueand net income in its filings with China's State Administrationfor Industry and Commerce (SAIC); (4) the Company lacked adequateinternal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of theforegoing, the Company's financial results were materially falseand misleading at all relevant times.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires theCourt to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case. Any person orgroup who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing A-Powersecurities between March 31, 2008, and June 27, 2011, may ask theCourt to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion nolater than the August 31, 2011 deadline.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is a law firm with significantexperience in prosecuting class actions, substantial expertise inactions involving corporate fraud, and is representing A-Powershareholders in this litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questionsconcerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect tothese matters, please contact:

APPLE INC: Makes First Payment After iOS Tracking Scandal---------------------------------------------------------According to an article posted at Social Barrel by Solon HarmonyDolor, Apple made its first payment to a complainant after the iOStracking scandal broke in the past months and a class action suitis being readied against the consumer electronics giant, variousreports detail.

According to Reuters in a report published on July 14, it hasconfirmed that Apple has paid Kim Hyung-Suk, a lawyer from SouthKorea, KRW1 million (about $950) last month for compensationbecause of a complaint it filed against Apple for tracking.

Reuters says that it had confirmed the payment made by theAmerican company via "two officials at Changwon District Court"who spoke to the news organization on July 14.

Mr. Kim is said to be part of a firm called Mirae Law and the firmis reportedly preparing a class action suit against Apple,Reuters says.

In a separate report, the Agence France-Presse, which has talkedto Kim, said that the lawyer has revealed that by July 15, about20,000 has joined the class action suit being prepared by the lawfirm.

"Users who bought iPhones or iPads before May 1 will be able tojoin the action," Mr. Kim told the AFP.

BLUE CROSS: ABA Therapy Suit Can Proceed as Class Action--------------------------------------------------------In a case brought by families having a child with autism spectrumdisorder against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Judge StephenJ. Murphy, III, on July 14 entered an Order granting Plaintiffs'Motion for Class Certification. The families filed suit againstBlue Cross over its policy of denying applied behavior analysis(ABA) therapy to children with autism. The suit alleges that BlueCross has illegally characterized ABA therapy as "experimental,"even though it is validated by overwhelming medical and scientificauthorities.

The ruling means that the case will proceed on behalf of thousandsof families who have Blue Cross insurance and who have a childwith autism. The Order was issued in the case of Potter v. BlueCross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-cv-14981 (E.D. Mich).

ABA is a well recognized and scientifically valid form of autismtreatment for children, as numerous authorities have found,including the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute ofMental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a studycommissioned by both the Medicare and Medicaid systems. Moreover,26 states mandate insurance coverage for ABA therapy. Yet,despite settling a class action last year on this same issue, andpaying approximately one million dollars in benefits, Blue CrossBlue Shield of Michigan persists in denying coverage for ABAtherapy on the ground that it is "experimental." Studies showthat providing ABA therapy to children with autism allows them toachieve their maximum potential and greater independence in theiradult lives.

The families are represented by Gerard Mantese and John Conway ofMichigan, whose contact information are:

CENTRAL VERMONT: Sued Over Proposed Gaz Metro Merger----------------------------------------------------John Curran, writing for The Associated Press, reports that aCentral Vermont Public Service Corp. shareholder is suing to blockthe utility's proposed sale, saying it undervalued its stock inaccepting two purchase offers and will shortchange investors bygoing through with the second.

CVPS, which is Vermont's largest electric utility, says it actedappropriately.

On May 30, Canadian utility Fortis Inc. announced plans to buyCVPS for $35.10 per share. That led to a rival bid of $35.25 pershare from Gaz Metro of Montreal, which owns Green Mountain PowerCorp.

Last week, CVPS announced it was backing out of the Fortisagreement in favor of the Gaz Metro proposal, a $472.4 milliondeal that would result in a merger of CVPS and Green MountainPower.

Not so fast, says CVPS shareholder Howard Davis.

In a federal lawsuit filed on July 13 in U.S. District Court inRutland, the Maine man says CVPS accepted an inadequate offer fromFortis, had to buy its way out of it and as a result got thesecond offer at a similarly inadequate price.

The suit says CVPS' board members "engaged in self-dealing andobtained for themselves personal benefits, including personalfinancial benefits" not shared by shareholders.

"We are confident that the CVPS board conducted a professional,comprehensive process leading up to the sale agreement, whichprovides a 45% premium on the stock, and complied with all oftheir duties," said the statement, provided by CVPS spokesmanSteve Costello. "We are confident that the court will agree."

No information about Davis was included in the complaint, and hisattorneys -- A. Jeffry Taylor of Rutland and Juan Monteverde ofNew York -- wouldn't say where in Maine he lives or give any otherinformation or comment.

Mr. Davis, whose attorneys want the suit declared a class actionon behalf of all CVPS shareholders, says CVPS' board failed toadequately gauge the market value of the company before agreeingto the Fortis deal and agreed to a too-low price, despite CVPS'strong performance and improved earnings in the previous year.

CVPS had to pay Fortis $19.5 million for a termination fee andexpenses to get out of it -- a $1.50-per-share hit toshareholders, according to the suit.

Had CVPS not agreed to such a low price in the Fortis offer, itcould've elicited a higher one from Gaz Metro, according to thesuit.

The suit acknowledges that the Gaz Metro offer is superior butcontends it could've been for more money.

In addition, Mr. Davis says, the Gaz Metro proposal includes thesame "preclusive devices" that resulted in the $19.5 millionpayment to sever the Fortis deal, which will either discouragemore bids for CVPS or require another substantial cash payment ifCVPS backs out of the Gaz Metro deal.

The suit seeks to either block the Gaz Metro purchase of CVPS orto recover damages resulting from the individual defendants'alleged violations of their fiduciary duty. It names CVPS, GazMetro Limited Partnership and 10 individual board members asdefendants.

COCA-COLA: Mediation for VitaminWater Class Action Postponed------------------------------------------------------------Emily Jed, writing for Vending Times, reports that mediationbetween Coca-Cola and consumer advocacy group The Center forScience in the Public Interest over health claims on Coke'sVitaminWater will be rescheduled now that a new "copycat" lawsuithas been filed against the soft drink giant, according to industrynews Web site FoodNavigator-USA.

The CSPI's lawsuit, filed in 2009, brings together class actionsuits in New Jersey, New York and California alleging thatCoca-Cola has misled consumers over the health benefits ofVitaminWater.

Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was rejected in 2010.The beverage giant agreed to enter mediation with the CSPI thatwas scheduled to begin on July 19.

CSPI's legal director said the mediation will be postponed untilthe court can hear the new "copycat" lawsuit, and allow CSPI tonegotiate "on behalf of the entire bunch of lawsuits." Themediation will likely be rescheduled for September or October,according to FoodNavigator-USA.

Federal judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn,NY, rejected Coke's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the groundsthat the soft drink giant's claim that its VitaminWater is a"vitamin-enhanced water beverage" and its slogan "vitamins + water= all you need" could mislead consumers into believing the drinkcontains only vitamins and water. He also rejected Coca-Cola'sargument that by listing the sugar content of VitaminWater on thenutrition panel it could not be accused of misleading consumers.

The judge also claimed Coca-Cola's use of the term "healthy"violated FDA regulations on vitamin-fortified foods. The rulesprohibit companies from making health claims on foods that may behigh in sugar and calories and lacking in nutrients and only meetvarious nutrient thresholds via fortification.

Coca-Cola, which acquired the Glaceau VitaminWater brand in 2007through its acquisition of Energy Brands, has declined to commenton the case.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia onbehalf of purchasers of shares of common stock of ComputerSciences Corporation during a class period of May 21, 2009, toMay 25, 2011.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiffand a class of all other individual and institutional investorswho purchased or otherwise acquired CSC common stock during theclass period. The defendants in the case are CSC, Michael W.Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and Donald G. DeBuck. The complaintalleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing material informationand making false and misleading statements relating to CSC'sbusiness and financial condition with respect to (i) pervasiveaccounting irregularities, (ii) material issues with a series ofcontracts between CSC and Britain's National Health Services, and(iii) forecasts for the fiscal year 2011 for which CSC had noreasonable basis.

If you purchased CSC common stock between May 21, 2009, andMay 25, 2011, you may, no later than September 13, 2011, requestthat the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. Alead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf ofother class members in directing the litigation. You must meetcertain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy ofthe complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff'scounsel at:

EBIX INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action-------------------------------------------------------Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on July 15 disclosed that it has filed aclass action lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of thecommon stock of Ebix, Inc. between May 6, 2009, through June 30,2011, inclusive.

Ebix supplies software and electronic commerce solutions to theinsurance industry. The Complaint alleges that during the ClassPeriod, Defendants issued a series of materially false andmisleading statements regarding the Company's business andfinancial results. Specifically, Defendants made false and/ormisleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) theCompany's tax provisions did not conform to Generally AcceptedAccounting Principles; (2) the Company overstated its accountreceivables; (3) the Company consistently failed to tie customerpayments to specific invoices; (4) the Company lacked adequateinternal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of theforegoing, the Company's statements were materially false andmisleading at all relevant times.

On March 24, 2011, Seeking Alpha published a report accusing theCompany of engaging in a number of accounting manipulations,including: (a) manipulating stated organic growth; (b) overstatingprofit margins; (c) overstating its accounts receivables; (d)manipulating tax liabilities; and (e) inflating cash flows. TheReport concluded that the Company's "problems run deeper thanaccounting. The EBIX story also comes with multiple auditorresignations, governance abuses, misrepresented organic growth,questionable cash flow and a contentious CEO." On this news, theCompany's shares plummeted $7.20 per share, or nearly 24%, toclose on March 24, 2011, at $22.52 per share, on unusually heavytrading volume.

On June 30, 2011, the media reported that the shareholders of PeakPerformance Solutions, Inc., who sold their business to Ebix,filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Ohio, claiming that Ebix was consistentlyunable to bill customers properly, tie customer payments toinvoices, and provide basic financial data or calculate revenuesfor Peak. On this news, the Company's shares declined anadditional $1.30 or more than 6% and closed at $19.05.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later thanSeptember 12, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as leadplaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representativeparty that acts on behalf of other class members in directing thelitigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Courtmust determine that the class member's claim is typical of theclaims of other class members, and that the class member willadequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, oneor more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected bythe decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You mayretain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, toserve as your counsel in this action.

For more information about the case or to participate online,please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix or contact Richard A.Maniskas, Esq. toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail atrmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

For more information about class action cases in general or tolearn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our Web site:http://www.rmclasslaw.com

There is a $455 million Settlement with Farmers Group, Inc., FireUnderwriters Association, and Truck Underwriters Association(together called "Farmers Group") and Zurich Financial ServicesLtd. involving management-service fees (Farmers Group and Zurichare the "Defendants").

What is the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit concerns the management-service fees that FarmersGroup charged to the Farmers Exchanges.

Am I included?

You are a Class Member if, at any time from 1999 through 2010, youwere a subscriber to, or a named insured on, an insurance orreinsurance policy issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange, FireInsurance Exchange, or Truck Insurance Exchange. The Class inthis lawsuit does not include insureds of any other insurancecompanies operating under the Farmers Insurance Group of Companiesservicemark.

What does the Settlement provide?

The proposed Settlement provides for:

-- A total payment of $455 million to be paid to Class Members,with any leftover money going to the Exchanges,

-- A payment of up to $90 million in attorneys' fees, expenses,and incentive award,

-- Payment of the costs of administering the Settlement, and

-- Certain business improvements to provide further educationto subscribers about the Subscription Agreement and the managementfee.

The Settlement Agreement, available at the Web site, contains moredetails about the Settlement.

How to get a payment?

You need to submit a Claim Form to get a payment. You can get aClaim Form online or by calling the toll-free number. Thedeadline to file a Claim Form is December 6, 2011. You can file aclaim by mail or online.

What are my other rights?

Remain in the Settlement: If you remain in the Settlement, youwill be bound by the terms of the Settlement and will give up yourright to sue the Defendants and the Exchanges on claims covered bythe Settlement. If you do not submit a Claim Form, you will notreceive a payment from the Settlement.

Get out of the Settlement: If you wish to keep your right to suethe Defendants or the Exchanges on claims covered by theSettlement, you must exclude yourself from the Class. Exclusionrequests must be received by August 18, 2011.

Remain in the Settlement and Object: If you stay in theSettlement, you can object to it. Objections must be received byAugust 18, 2011.

The Court will hold a hearing in the case, known as Fogel v.Farmers Group, Inc., No. BC300142, on September 7, 2011, in LosAngeles, California, to consider whether to approve the Settlementand a request by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, expenses, andincentive award. You or your own lawyer may ask to appear andspeak at the hearing at your own cost.

"Authorities across the world started asking a lot of questionsand at first Google denied having done this. Ultimately theyadmitted doing this and in fact intercepted these communicationsand stored them," said Kathryn Barnett, at Lieff, Cabraser,Heimann and Berstein.

She is representing three Tennesseans, of 22 people across thecountry, who are suing Google.

The suit claims those cars intercepted, copied, downloaded andsaved, information sent from a computer when the cars passed.

"People who were banking at home, people who were sending medicalrecords, people sending anything. Anything you were transmittingwhen Google drove by your house; unless you had a password on yoursystem, Google took it, they have it," Ms. Barnett said.

Ms. Barnett explained the information could only be taken if youwere using unsecured wireless Internet, in other words, if youdidn't protect your system with a password.

"We don't know what they have, because we haven't been able todiscover yet. We have an idea, but one of the very things we wantto do is find out: what Google took, why Google took it, whatGoogle has done with it," said Ms. Barnett.

The class action lawsuit was filed in California, the headquartersof Google.

While the company admits mistakes, Google said it does not feelthe company broke the Federal Wiretap law, the basis they arebeing sued.

"We want the courts to tell companies they can't do this and evenif you have a lot of resources and are clever enough to come upwith a new technology to intercept private communications, thatdoesn't make it right, that doesn't it make it fair," saidMs. Barnett.

Attorneys intended to file paper work with the judge in Californialast July 15, saying Google should not be allowed to appeal aruling allowing the suit to go forward.

LAUREATE EDUCATION: Shareholders Get $35MM, Oct. 13 Hearing Set---------------------------------------------------------------Scott Dance, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports thatshareholders of Laureate Education Inc. have been awarded $35million in a class-action settlement dating back to the company's$3.8 billion sale in 2007.

Laureate went from public to private in that deal, led by CEODouglas Becker and other company management, but some shareholdersargued the sale wasn't the best value for them. Such lawsuits arecommon when companies take on major mergers and acquisitions, butit's less often that shareholders end up getting any money out ofthem.

The Laureate buyout was one of Baltimore's largest deals of thepast decade. The settlement, while it does not prove anyimpropriety, gives cash back to shareholders who were leftwondering what could have been of the company. Online highereducation specialist Laureate, along with Educate Inc., was once apiece of the former Sylvan Learning Systems.

Baltimore City Circuit Court is seeking shareholders who ownedLaureate stock as the buyout was being considered to weigh in onapproving the settlement. Circuit Court Judge W. Michel Piersonis holding a hearing on the settlement at 9:30 a.m., Oct. 13, toconsider final approval of the settlement. The court gave itpreliminary approval June 13.

Shareholders are being given until Sept. 29 to object to thesettlement.

The Laureate buyout deal was part of a wave of private equitydeals, as such money was flowing freely leading up to therecession in 2007 and 2008. A group of investors led by Beckermade an initial offer in January 2007 and upped it to $3.82billion in June 2007. The consortium backing Becker's buyoutproposal included private equity giants like Kohlberg KravisRoberts & Co., Citi Private Equity and Sterling Capital.

At the time, Laureate was Greater Baltimore's ninth-largest publiccompany, with more than $1 billion in revenue in 2006. The buyoutwas the largest deal in the Baltimore area of 2008.

As the deal was being considered, some shareholders, includingBaltimore money manager T. Rowe Price Group Inc., argued the dealbenefited management while shortchanging stockholders, leading tothe increased offer.

By July 2007, stockholders had tendered more than half ofoutstanding Laureate shares, sealing approval of the deal.

Typically in such a class-action settlement, a defined set ofpeople will fit into the "class" eligible for some kind of relief,said Brian Moffet, a lawyer with Gordon Feinblatt in Baltimore whois not associated with the Laureate case.

In this case, the class includes anyone who owned Laureate stockbetween the time of the initial buyout offer, Jan. 28, 2007,through Aug. 17, 2007. If stockholders did not voluntarily selltheir shares in the buyout, they were given $62 in cash, the sameas those who were in favor of the buyout.

Anyone who qualifies for the class is automatically included butis being given a chance to opt out of the settlement. Class-action settlements typically give those included in the class thechance to opt in or out of the settlement, Mr. Moffet said.

Shareholders who don't opt out of the settlement will receivetheir share of the $35 million, based on how many shares theyowned. More than 60 million shares were purchased in the buyout.

Laureate officials declined to comment on the settlement.Arthur N. Abbey, a New York lawyer with Abbey Spanier Rodd &Abrams LLP who is representing the shareholders, could not bereached for comment.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Florida, that ahearing will be held on Wednesday, September 28, 2011, at 9:30a.m., before the Honorable Donald L. Graham at the United StatesCourthouse, Federal Justice Building, 400 North Miami Avenue,Courtroom 13-4, Miami, Florida 33128-1812, for the purpose ofdetermining (1) whether the proposed settlement for the sum of OneMillion Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000) in cashshould be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;(2) whether, after the hearing, this Litigation should bedismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions setforth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of June 14, 2011;(3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, andadequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the applicationof Class Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees andreimbursement of expenses incurred in this Litigation should beapproved.

If you acquired the publicly-traded common stock of Levitt betweenJanuary 31, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, your rights maybe affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you have notreceived a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement ofClass Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, youshould obtain copies by writing to Dance v. Levitt Corp., et al,Claims Administrator, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. or byvisiting the Web site of the Claims Administrator athttp://www.gcginc.com

The Notice contains details about this Litigation and settlement,including what you must do to exclude yourself from thesettlement, object to the terms of the settlement, or file a Proofof Claim. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in thedistribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proofof Claim and Release postmarked no later than September 25, 2011,establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit aRequest for Exclusion postmarked by September 7, 2011, in themanner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred toabove. All Members of the Class who have not timely and validlyrequested exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgmententered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions ofthe Stipulation of Settlement. Your objection(s) must be mailedon or before September 7, 2011 to: the Court; Kirby McInerney LLP;and on behalf of the Defendants, at the following addresses:

COURT: Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida, Federal Justice Building, 400 NorthMiami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128-1812

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDINGTHIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, youmay contact Class Counsel for Named Plaintiffs and the Class atthe address listed above.

DATED: July 15, 2011, BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LOGITECH INT'L: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Dyer & Berens LLP on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of LogitechInternational SA common stock between October 28, 2010, andApril 1, 2011, inclusive.

What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased sharesduring the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, youmust request appointment by the court no later than July 22, 2011.If you would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiffprocess, or have any questions concerning this notice, pleasecontact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-3362 x302 or via e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com

What are the allegations in the complaint? The complaint allegesthat during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclosematerial adverse facts about the Company's true financialcondition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaintalleges: (a) that the Company's distributors were overstocked withinventory of certain product lines; (b) that the Company's pricingand promotional activity was not operating according to plan; (c)that demand for the Company's products in the Europe, Middle Eastand Africa markets was significantly declining far below internalexpectations; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'positive statements about the Company were lacking in a reasonablebasis of fact. Based upon the foregoing, the complaint chargesthe Company and certain of its officers and directors withviolations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff is represented by several law firms, including Dyer& Berens LLP, which specializes in prosecuting investor classactions involving financial fraud.

MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $3.2MM---------------------------------------------------------------According to an article posted at Air Cargo World, MalaysiaAirlines will pay $3.2 million to settle a class-action lawsuitbrought against the carrier due to its part in the ongoing price-fixing scandal.

The firms Kaplan Fox; Labaton Sucharow; Levin, Fishbein, Savran &Berman; and Hausfeld LLP have been representing purchasersaffected by carriers who fixed prices. Kaplan won the Malyasisettlement, and last month, Hausfield settled with British Airwaysand LAN Airlines for more than $150 million.

Now that Malaysia has settled, 12 of 42 carriers have agreed topay money to claimants. Air France-KLM/Martinair and Lufthansahave paid out some of the heftiest fees associated with the class-action suit, doling out $87 and $85 million, respectively.

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: July 26 Trial Set for Redistricting Plan Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that minorityvoters who filed a class action lawsuit against the Nassau CountyLegislature and Board of Elections to stop a redistricting planthey say will disenfranchise 40% of voters in advance of thisNovember's elections will get their day in court later this month.

According to the plaintiffs, the redistricting is merely a blatantattempt by county Republicans to boost their control of the countylegislature.

On July 5, local Democratic leaders won the right to take similarclaims to state court, where the legislators plan to argue thatthe redistricting violates the Nassau County charter.

The federal class action, on the other hand, attacks theredistricting plan on the grounds of alleged violations to the14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of1965, which safeguard the rights of minority voters.

The four minority voters serving as lead plaintiffs note theVoting Rights Act is responsible for the existence of the NassauLegislature.

In 1993, different minority voters sued the now-defunct Board ofSupervisors, which a federal judge disbanded for violating theConstitution's principle of "one-person, one vote rule."

A year later, the newly-formed Nassau County Legislature held itsfirst elections in 19 districts, and two of the winners wouldbecome the county's first African-American representatives in itsnearly century-long history.

In 2009, Newsday reported that former Nassau County ExecutiveTom Suozzi said in a debate that Nassau is still one of the mostsegregated places in America.

Republican Presiding Officer Peter Schmitt, who introduced themaps in April, now claims to be holding the mantle of the VotingActs Right, while the Democratic leaders and many minority voterssuing him in twin cases believe he is making a mockery of it.

Taking cues from the legal opinions of Nassau County AttorneyJohn Ciampoli, a former counsel for the New York State SenateRepublican Campaign Committee, Mr. Schmitt said the radicalreshuffling was necessary because the 2010 Census revealed thatthe old maps unconstitutionally diluted minority votes.

A lawyer for the minority voters in the class action called thatexplanation "hogwash."

"This has nothing to do with the rights of minorities," leadattorney Frederick Brewington told Courthouse News. "They didn'tdo this to help. They did it to hurt, and they know it."

In a prior phone interview with Courthouse News, Mr. Ciampoli saidthat the new maps could avoid lawsuits alleging violations to theVoting Rights Act.

Instead, the redistricting plan prompted the class action againstthe county's Legislature and Board of Directors, filed on June 6.

Critics say the new maps force two Democrats to run against eachother and isolate like-minded voters so dramatically that certaindistricts are only connected by water. The maps also change thedistrict of local Democrat Diane Yatauro, the Minority Leader ofthe Legislature, after she announced she would not be seekinganother term, but before her replacement had been named. Thetiming ensured that the plan would sidestep a local lawprohibiting redistricting incumbents.

Nassau Democrats call the redistricting "mandering of the worstilk," designed by Republicans to maintain or increase their 11-to-8 majority status in the next election.

"They moved the lines strategically to capitalize on thissituation so that they could gain three more seats,"Mr. Brewington said.

In May, the Republican-majority legislature approved theredistricting in a vote split roughly on party lines.Both lawsuits preceded the vote, and either one of them canprevent the redistricting from taking effect before the Novemberelections.

But Mr. Brewington cautioned that victory in either case might notmean that Democrats are in the clear.

"No one can imagine what the possibilities are because the lastchapter hasn't been written," Mr. Brewington said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlene Lindsay ordered the parties to wrapup discovery by July 20.

Trial is set for July 26.

A copy of the Order in Boone, et al. v. Nassau County Legislature,et al., Case No. 11-cv-02712 (E.D.N.Y.), is available at:

OLD NATIONAL BANK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------An Indiana judge has denied Old National Bank's motion to dismissa class action complaint filed on behalf of the bank's customerswho were charged overdraft protection fees when they used theirOld National Bank debit cards. According to the complaint, thebank reordered its customers' debit card transactions to increasethe bank's revenue from such fees. "We believe that this practiceis unfair to consumers, especially when the amount of the feeexceeds the transaction amount," said William M. Sweetnam,managing member of Sweetnam LLC in Chicago, Illinois, whorepresents the plaintiff and the proposed class. The amountscharged, typically $35 per overdraft paid, can amount to hundredsof dollars in fees charged to consumers who rely on their debitcards for everyday purchases. Recently, federal legislation wasenacted requiring consumers to opt-in to receive overdraftprotection and consent to the associated charges. Old NationalBank has denied the allegations of the complaint.

Old National Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of Old NationalBancorp and provides banking services in Indiana, Illinois andKentucky.

About Sweetnam LLC:

Established in 2008, Sweetnam LLC -- http://www.sweetnamllc.com-- was formed to represent victims of fraud at the hands ofcorporations, financial institutions and insurance companies.Sweetnam LLC has extensive experience prosecuting class actions instate and federal courts across the country involving violationsof consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes, breachof warranty and violations of federal securities laws, shareholderderivative suits and appeals. Sweetnam LLC has acted as leadcounsel, co-lead counsel and has been a member of the executiveand steering committees in consumer, antitrust and other classaction, complex and multidistrict litigation matters.

POPULAR INC: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay----------------------------------------------------------------Gainey & McKenna and Harwood Feffer LLP, Plaintiffs' Co-LeadCounsel, and Popular, Inc. on July 15 disclosed that a Settlementhas been preliminarily approved by the United States DistrictCourt, District of Puerto Rico in the consolidated class actionlawsuit, In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File: 3:09-CV-01552-ADC, against Popular, Inc. and certain of its current andformer officers and directors, alleging breaches of fiduciaryduties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Settlement will provide for a payment of $8.2 million to thePlans (minus Court-approved fees and expenses), which will then beallocated to the accounts of participants of the Plans (definedbelow) who had portions of their Plan accounts invested inEmployer Stock in the Employer Stock Fund during the Class Period.You do not need to send in a claim or take any other action toparticipate in the Settlement. If you qualify, you will receivean allocation.

The Court will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on August 26, 2011, inthe Courtroom of Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon of the United StatesDistrict Court, District of Puerto Rico, Clemente Ruiz-NazarioU.S. Courthouse, 150 Carlos Chardon Street, Hato Rey, P.R. 00918to consider whether to approve the Settlement, the proposed planof allocation and a request by the attorneys representing allSettlement Class Members for an award of attorneys' fees andreimbursement of expenses, and for case contribution awards to thenamed plaintiffs. If approved, these amounts will be paid fromthe settlement fund. You may ask to speak at the hearing byfiling a Notice of Intention to Appear, but you are not requiredto do so. Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you mayobject to all or any part of the Settlement in accordance with thelong-form Notice of Class Action Settlement.

The Settlement Class consists of all participants of the Popular,Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc.U.S.A. 401(k) Savings & Investment Plan who held Employer Stock,as that term is defined in the Plans, in their individual accountsin the Plans at any time during the period starting on January 24,2008 and ending on April 6, 2011, and as to each such Person, his,her, or its beneficiaries, alternate payees (including spouses ofdeceased Persons who were Plan participants), and Successors-In-Interest, but excluding the Defendants. If you are a SettlementClass Member and have not received a copy of the long-form Noticeof Class Action Settlement and would like to receive additionalinformation or a copy of the Notice, please visithttp://www.berdonclaims.comor call toll-free 800-766-3330 and identify yourself as a Settlement Class Member.

Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court or the Clerk of theCourt.

TIME WARNER: Sued by Deaf People Over Refusal to Caption Videos---------------------------------------------------------------Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc., Daniel Jacob, EdwardKelly and Jennifer Olson, on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated v. Time Warner Inc., Case No. RG 11580682(Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 15, 2011) seeks to end theongoing violation of California anti-discrimination law that TimeWarner commits against people, who are deaf or hard of hearing byrefusing to caption its online news videos at CNN.com.

Through this refusal, Time Warner denies deaf individuals accessto much of the most important content it offers through CNN.com,the Plaintiffs contend. They assert that their lawsuit seeks toend Time Warner's ongoing discrimination by requiring it toprovide closed captioning for its videos on CNN.com.

The Plaintiffs are residents of California and with disability inthat they are deaf. GLAD is a non-profit California corporationwith a mission to ensure that the deaf and hard of hearingcommunity in California has access to the same opportunities astheir hearing counterparts.

Time Warner is a Delaware public company, and is one of thelargest media and entertainment companies in the world. TimeWarner maintains approximately 1,100 subsidiaries, includingTurner Broadcasting System, Inc. that owns CNN.com.

Time Warner removed the lawsuit on July 14, 2011, from theSuperior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, tothe United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia. Time Warner argues that the removal is proper becauseit is a citizen of the states of Delaware and New York, and notCalifornia. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-03458 to the proceeding.

YUHE INT'L: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is representing Yuhe International, Inc.shareholders in a securities class action lawsuit. The Rosen LawFirm, P.A. reminds investors of the important August 23, 2011 leadplaintiff deadline in the securities class action filed by thefirm. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalfof other class members in directing the litigation. If youpurchased the stock of Yuhe International, Inc during the periodfrom December 31, 2009, through June 23, 2011, you may participatein the class action as a lead plaintiff and seek to recoversinvestment losses.

To join the Yuhe class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web siteat http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., or Laurence Rosen, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may alsoe-mail lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com forinformation on the class action.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities lawsagainst Yuhe and its officers and directors for issuing false andmisleading information to investors about the financial andbusiness condition of the Company. The Complaint alleges that (a)Yuhe's financial results as reported to the SEC for the fiscalyears ended 2009 and 2010 were materially false and misleading;(b) Yuhe lied to investors about its purported acquisition of 13breeder farms from Weifangshi Dajiang Qiye Group Co. Ltd.; and (c)Yuhe's business was not growing at the rate represented bydefendants.

The Complaint alleges that on or about June 16, 2011, informationfrom an analyst entered the market, quoting Dajiang's chairman,that Yuhe did not acquire Dajiang's farms, as Yuhe had representedin its SEC filings and other public statements. This announcementshocked the market and Yuhe's stock lost more than half of itsvalue. On June 17, 2011, trading in the Company's stock washalted. On June 23, 2011, the Company announced its auditor hadresigned because of Yuhe "management's misrepresentation andfailure to disclose material facts surrounding certain acquisitiontransactions and off balance sheet related party transactions."Moreover, the auditor stated that its audited financial statementsof Yuhe International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010should no longer be relied upon and that the auditor no longerwill be associated with the financial statements.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than August 23, 2011. If you wish to join the litigation,or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this classaction, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm,toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.comYou may also visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,concentrating its practice in securities class actions andshareholder derivative litigation.

ZENTA MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime---------------------------------------------------------------Adam O'Daniel, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reportsthat Zenta Mortgage Services could be forced to turn over recordson many of its mortgage servicers if a U.S. District Court rulesin favor of a former employee who is suing the company.

Former Zenta employee Joseph Savitskie of Charlotte is suing thecompany, alleging it failed to pay overtime and violated laborlaws. His lawyers have filed a motion asking for the case to beelevated to class-action status and for Zenta to turn over thenames of other mortgage servicers they claim have also been deniedovertime pay.

Zenta employs hundreds of mortgage servicers at its office offArrowood Road in south Charlotte. Its workers service mortgagesfor large U.S. banks. The firm has been hiring since late 2009,when it received promises of up to $10 million in state incentivesto add as many as 1,000 jobs in Charlotte. Gov. Bev Perdue camein Charlotte with Zenta Chief Executive Henry Hortenstine toannounce the expansion.

In court filings, Mr. Savitskie's attorneys argue Zenta haswrongfully denied overtime pay to all of its mortgageunderwriters. Therefore, they contend the company should becompelled to provide the names of other mortgage underwriters sothey can be given the opportunity to opt in to the lawsuit.

If that motion is approved by a judge, Zenta would have to providelawyers with a list of all underwriters who are or were employedat any time in the past three years. In addition, attorneys areasking for Zenta to provide their names, job titles, addresses,telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, dates of employment,location of employment, employee numbers and Social Securitynumbers, according to court documents.

Zenta has denied the allegations, and its lawyers have said theywill fight the lawsuit and the motion for class-action status.

They argue in a recent court filing that the claims should bedenied because Zenta acted "in good faith and with a reasonablegrounds for believing that employees engaging in mortgageunderwriting activities were exempt from overtime."

Mr. Savitskie, employed by Zenta from August 2010 until March 4,sued Zenta this spring, accusing the company of askingunderwriters to work more than 40 hours per week with no overtimepay. Zenta management told Mr. Savitskie and others "that it wasin their best interest to work as much as possible," the suitalleges.

It contends the practice violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Savitskie, who is now represented by Philadelphia law firmBerger & Montague, could not be reached for comment. One of hislawyers, Shanon Carson, declines to comment.

The case hinges on gray areas of employment law that deal withwhich types of employees are exempt from overtime pay. Untilrecently, mortgage servicers fell under an "administrativeexemption" for overtime pay that applies to non-manual labor jobsdirectly related to the management or policies of the employer,experts say.

But a recent U.S. Second Court of Appeals ruling found in favor ofa former employee of JPMorgan Chase & Co. That suit argued thatunderwriters engage in the production of loans and notadministrative tasks that relate to management or company policy.Therefore, they shouldn't be considered exempt, that suitcontended.

How that exemption is interpreted and applied to mortgageunderwriters is the crux of the Zenta lawsuit.

"It's a hot area of wage-and-hour litigation right now," saysMeredith Jefferies, a Charlotte School of Law professor whopracticed law at Alston & Bird for 12 years. "Since that opinioncame out, these types of claims have been popping out everywhere."

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.